Synthetic life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2013, 04:48 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 04:13 PM)Dirtnapper324 Wrote:  It seems to me the "design" argument is saying we are the ultimate design, that we are still not evolving. Whether direct( normal creationist) or indirect( your version). I'm pretty sure we are still evolving, and we don't know what we will look like in a 100,000 years. Or if we will survive that long. So if God started the ball rolling and we die off, what was the point? I think cutting to the chase, creationist believe everything was designed for us (directly/indirectly), athiest believe we are just part of the whole. Cosmic dust ultimately. I'm not saying I know what you believe, but in general. The rest is just for argument sake on details. This is just my take on it, I don't profess to have the best handle on the issue. I'm here to learn more, or less (sometimes).. Smartass

I'm not convinced humans are the end product.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 05:04 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 04:06 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 03:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You can design an evolutionary system to produce any end product you wish. On YouTube there is a video where a someone uses descent with modification to evolve a picture of a face. I haven't figured out how to make a proper link to it with my Xoom though.

Search "genetic algorithms face" and it should come up.
If you produce an end product with a picture of a face you already have to thing you are trying to recreate in existence. Which would mean that god would have a template world, that he'd run a genetic algorithm to come to the same conclusion. In other words it's a terrible way to copy and paste.

However other applications for genetic algorithms are to solve problems. They are used to optimize computer code, beat megaman, or engineering applications. In other words it's used to gain answers, and sometimes as a demonstration reproduce photos.

Anyways at least you accept evolution.

You don't need a template. If your goal is to create a being which chases a red dot, you don't need a mental picture of how many legs it should have.

Perhaps the Christian God used evolution to create beings who were capable of loving and serving God, but not expressly designed to do so. He could do this by designing the system to produce beings with intellect and free will. The other details of humans could be extraneous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 06:43 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 04:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 04:13 PM)Dirtnapper324 Wrote:  It seems to me the "design" argument is saying we are the ultimate design, that we are still not evolving. Whether direct( normal creationist) or indirect( your version). I'm pretty sure we are still evolving, and we don't know what we will look like in a 100,000 years. Or if we will survive that long. So if God started the ball rolling and we die off, what was the point? I think cutting to the chase, creationist believe everything was designed for us (directly/indirectly), athiest believe we are just part of the whole. Cosmic dust ultimately. I'm not saying I know what you believe, but in general. The rest is just for argument sake on details. This is just my take on it, I don't profess to have the best handle on the issue. I'm here to learn more, or less (sometimes).. Smartass

I'm not convinced humans are the end product.

Good, because there is no end product. Evolution has no goals.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-03-2013, 07:37 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 06:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 04:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm not convinced humans are the end product.

Good, because there is no end product. Evolution has no goals.

That depends.

If write an evolution simulator in order to produce beings capable of chasing a red dot, the goal of that system is going to be to produce begins which can chase red dots.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 07:44 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
I give up.
[Image: Zf9tWT1.jpg]

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
26-03-2013, 07:52 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 07:44 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I give up.
[Image: Zf9tWT1.jpg]

You don't think securing victory for mega man is worthy of being called a goal?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 08:29 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2013 08:38 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 07:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 07:44 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I give up.
[Image: Zf9tWT1.jpg]

You don't think securing victory for mega man is worthy of being called a goal?
That's the fun part about not being constricted by the rules of logic or knowledge of science. You can always adapt your belief's to the argument, and later when it's all said and done you will simply go back to believing what you did to begin with.

The goal for a genetic algorithm is to solve problems.

Algorithm - a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 08:34 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 07:37 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 06:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Good, because there is no end product. Evolution has no goals.

That depends.

If write an evolution simulator in order to produce beings capable of chasing a red dot, the goal of that system is going to be to produce begins which can chase red dots.

What's your point? That's a program, that's not the natural world.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 08:48 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2013 08:51 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 08:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  What's your point? That's a program, that's not the natural world.

You claimed that evolution has no goal. My point is that you are wrong. Evolutionary systems designed by intellects have associated goals. Just because the evolution happens within the framework of a computer doesn't mean it isn't evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 09:32 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 08:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 08:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  What's your point? That's a program, that's not the natural world.

You claimed that evolution has no goal. My point is that you are wrong. Evolutionary systems designed by intellects have associated goals. Just because the evolution happens within the framework of a computer doesn't mean it isn't evolution.


It isn't the same algorithm as evolution in nature. You are trying to equate two things that are not the same.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: